User talk:Localemediamonitor

Welcome to Wikipedia!
- Welcome-

August 2013
Hello, I'm OSborn. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Mark Levin seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. OSborn arfcontribs. 23:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
OSborn arfcontribs. 01:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
OSborn arfcontribs. 00:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Diana Banister
Hello Localemediamonitor,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Diana Banister for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Makro (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Groundswell group for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Groundswell group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Groundswell group until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gary Gauthier


The article Gary Gauthier has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:CRIMINAL; the accused was not a national figure, it is too soon to see if there is lasting interest in this. Also seems to be WP:BLP1E, and that one event is not something that he is yet convicted of.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Gary Gauthier for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gary Gauthier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gary Gauthier until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Live person chat
Clyde Lewis

chat is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Clyde_Lewis Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

please note - do not add this type of policy violating content again - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clyde_Lewis&diff=617640279&oldid=617518739 Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your deletion makes no sense at all--you cut out the only part of the paragraph that has any citation or verification. Either cut the whole paragraph or leave it. Please note, do not issue warnings like this again(talk) 21:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

warning
edit war at Clyde Lewis

WP:3RR -

Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is this Mosfetfaser who is deleting entire sections that have citations to published sources, is ignoring other uses who are defending the sections, and is now issuing warnings? Is this person working together with known vandal User:Subglobal to remove any facts they don't like because they are fans?Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yawn - I care not about the subject of the story only about wiki laws - chat on the blp page and look for support Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clyde Lewis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New World Order. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Jaggi Vasudev and Isha Foundation
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. Regstuff (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Balyo


A tag has been placed on John Balyo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Trinidade (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Clyde Lewis
Hello. Before you reverted me did you read my edit summary? ''Per WP:MOSQUOTE "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment". Also it must be IP not ISP, surely?).'' So if you think this is wrong, then you will need to go and argue for a change in the WP:MOS, but not in an individual article. Thank you and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the spelling and typo rules does not apply to direct quotations from a person's work. This is a very basic rule of prose. You cannot put quotation marks around text attributed to and written by someone and then change that text. I hope that helps. Please feel free to contact me again.Localemediamonitor (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm sorry to repeat myself, and I certainly do not wish to sound uncivil, but did you actually read what it says at the link I gave? And, if so, how, please, do you reconcile it with your comments above? I'm not being disingenuous here but I honestly do not get it - can you please explain? I'm not reverting you again while we discuss it, by the way. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Please forgive me if I've been obstinate. Yes, I did read the style guide, and yes, you are mostly right. It's just that as a professional editor it's hard for me to accept any changes from the original text inside of quote marks, since this is just not done in journalism or academia. I'm surprised the Wiki style guide has it that way. I suppose the argument is that an encyclopedia is still accurate even if it changes the "trivial spelling and typographic errors" inside a quotation. I could argue that the errors should be maintained with sics because they are "textually important"--it shows the haphazard and hasty manner in which the allegations and claims are made. But that would be a stretch. I propose that you either change it back it again, or you help me to fight for justice in the WP:MOS. Disillusioned and bitter for real, Localemediamonitor (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the very nice reply. It deserves proper comment and I hope that I will have time to get to this soon; for now I thought I'd better let you know that I have decided to leave the article alone. More soon or soonish I hope. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Groundswell group for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Groundswell group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Groundswell group & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tgeairn (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mission: America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equality Act. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bryan Suits, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tea Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

William Binney 'edit war'
Am I doing this right? Some false information being attempted to go into this wiki page. Then you flagged as a edit war. Which is fine. Let me know what you think.

The section noted is not from a reliable source. The Bloomberg story is grossly misrepresented and supports the OPPOSITE conclusion then the reading is lead to believe, therefor bad sourcing and dishonest authoring. MediaMatters is a DNC mouthpiece, and cannot be cited by anyone who knows anything about modern politics. The Weekly Standard does not contain Binney's name, and should be moved to relevant section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)#Secret_Memo_Mistake_on_Alex_Jone's_Infowars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.77.55 (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, the best next step is to write your concerns on the talk page for the article, to be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)#Secret_Memo ...Then there can be a debate followed by other editors making any changes they deem fit.  Localemediamonitor (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

TY sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantspantsly (talk • contribs) 00:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting me.
I thought I was reverting to the version that said she was born in Hershey. Oops. ClimaxApproaching (Contribs) (CSDs) 13:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi Localemediamonitor. I've reverted some of your recent edits due to WP:BLP and WP:NOT concerns. As others' pointed out to you, the use of poor sources, especially in BLP articles, is problematic.

Sorry to repeat myself from our past discussion, but content focusing on controversy can easily have multiple WP:NOT and WP:NPOV problems. The solution is to work from independent, reliable sources that provide clear encyclopedic context (historical background, comparisons to other notable events or entities, etc). --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ronz, you're way off by claiming that The Atlantic is not a reliable source. Please consider removing yourself from involvement in this matter and bringing in some different, objective editors to make this decision.Localemediamonitor (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Localemediamonitor, you're way off by claiming that The Atlantic is a reliable source. Please consider removing yourself from involvement in this matter and bringing in some different, objective editors to make this decision.-Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Prager
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Dennis Prager. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Ronz, you're way off by claiming that The Atlantic is not a reliable source. Please stop the block threats and consider removing yourself from involvement in this matter and bringing in some different, objective editors to make this decision.Localemediamonitor (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Localemediamonitor, you're way off by claiming that The Atlantic is a reliable source. Please consider removing yourself from involvement in this matter and bringing in some different, objective editors to make this decision. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

DES pointed out on the article talk page that the content you added most recently is not similar enough with past content to be considered a revert. I agree and apologize for not looking more closely. --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ronz, peace. Localemediamonitor (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that helps. However, DES was mistaken . Regardless, I hope we can move forward a bit easier now. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantic: credible source?
I reviewed the sometimes contentious back and forth between you and, going back to a discussion in 2017, now archived. If a pundit is noteworthy by Wikipedia standards, it is because that pundit has noteworthy views. I submit that whether or not The Atlantic proves credible is irrelevant, that what matters here is how noteworthy a particular Prager view is.


 * I looked into only one Prager view that User:Ronz deleted, that false accusations of rape have been extremely injurious to their targets. That view was universally agreed upon before he ever wrote the article. Should the article "Adelphious (Wikipedia user)" ever be started, no one will include in it my view that hydrogen exists; that too was established long before I ever made the claim. Had his "Hey, everybody, look at me!" rhetoric scored more attention, that would be noteworthy, but besides The Atlantic, only opinion-oriented publications seem to have committed ink/bytes to it, which is not noteworthy. If anyone else would like to chime in on the other issues, I suggest doing it with a bullet below. Adelphious (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "that false accusations of rape have been extremely injurious to their targets" was not the issue or the controversy behind the statement, the controversy was around Prager's assertion that the false accusations can be worse than being physically raped, especially in context with his other controversial remarks concerning "rape culture" and that the number of rapes is exaggerated as a tool of the Democratic Party to gain votes. I think a consensus is forming that these comments are noteworthy, as was the controversy around them. Localemediamonitor (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can find no controversy around that particular statement outside of one The Atlantic article and a small assortment of opinion-oriented publications. By comparison, his opinion about using sacred books in congressional swear-ins inspired the mayor of New York to campaign against him at a particular NGO, making that controversy noteworthy. I could find no one of similar gravitas commenting on the rape article in question. Have I overlooked someone? I agree that increased interest in his views about campus rape might argue a fortiori for its relevance, but the one article I've read about controversial campus rape comments he made at a Republican rally in Florida didn't mention it. My impression is that not enough people care what he thinks on the topic. Adelphious (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Science of Identity Foundation
Please note I have nominated Science of Identity Foundation for deletion. TFD (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * Michael Ledeen
 * added a link pointing to Groundswell
 * Virginia Thomas
 * added a link pointing to Groundswell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits to Vishnudevananda Saraswati
Hi, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia.

However, the abuse allegations issue is only a subsection of this article, and is already covered from Reliable Sources; it would not be right per WP:COATRACK to have most of the article covering this side-issue. Further, at least one source you used (twice), "medium", is rated by Wikipedia as "generally unreliable", i.e. we would rarely if ever make use of it. The section is actually quite detailed already, and covers the main points of the matter, so I've reverted your edits. If you are convinced that you have something specific to add that a global encyclopedia, as opposed to a news/update site, would need to say, and you have a high-quality site that we haven't used already, then feel free to mention that on the talk page. Otherwise, probably best to leave it as it is. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Vishnudevananda Saraswati, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You appear to have ignored both my detailed edit comment and my explanation above, though perhaps you did this in haste before seeing the message.


 * I have reverted your edit-warring style additions per status quo ante. If you believe you have a case, please explain it carefully on the article's talk page, supplying ONLY high-quality sources - medium is not acceptable - and justify why a short biography article would need further detail despite the WP:COATRACK policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I was dragged into this, but literally the first line on WP:COATRACK explicitly states that it is NOT policy. WP:DUE is the actual policy. The content that was added in Vishnudevananda Saraswati seems appropriately weighted to me, as it is at the bottom and didn't take up a significant portion of the article.
 * The addition of the material to Sivananda Yoga was inappropriate. That article is a type of physical exercise. The allegations don't really have anything to do with the exercise itself.
 * I am not going to bother looking at the sources. If a source is Verifiable, then it can be used. If it is not verifiable, then it generally cannot be used. If the claims in dispute are considered exceptional/extraordinary, then multiple sources may be required. If it cannot be sourced, it should not be included. If it can be sourced, then it probably should be.
 * I don't edit on wikipedia anymore. If you still have a dispute, use the wp:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Gamebuster (Talk)║(Contributions) 02:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So Chiswick Chap shall we take Gamebusters advice? He says the changes to the Sivananda page were inappropriate (I concede) but that the content that was added in Vishnudevananda Saraswati was "appropriately weighted" and the sourcing was also appropriate. Localemediamonitor (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the article. I think we have very thin sourcing, bordering on wholly unacceptable, but that despite medium.com's and facebook's bad reputations for reliability, the testimonies of Salter and Kyssa can be taken as accepted because of the Board of Directors' statement acknowledging them; and further, that Matthew Remski, a notable yoga practitioner and author, can similarly be cited. I've therefore used those sources, and have rearranged the material into chronological order. This does not mean that we can use medium.com willy-nilly: it remains "generally unreliable" and will certainly be challenged by the people who police such things; we will have to be extremely vigilant with what is asserted, and to remain neutral. By the way, part of the problem was the use of bare URLs rather than proper citations, which would have identified postings by Remski. Anyway, I hope you'll be pleased with the text. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for your work Chiswick Chap, the section is better. I think it still misses some appropriate facts, like that the Centre's investigation has been rejected and criticized by many of its own high-level members, that a private investigation is underway, and that the number of women alleging abuse or rape is over 30. Maybe you could put some of that in; I think the Le Devoir and Bayerischer Rundfunk sources are both legit, they have been used on Wikipedia many times. And/or we can leave it for now, maybe the BBC coverage will shake out some more major news reports on the subject. Thanks again Localemediamonitor (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So Chiswick Chap shall we take Gamebusters advice? He says the changes to the Sivananda page were inappropriate (I concede) but that the content that was added in Vishnudevananda Saraswati was "appropriately weighted" and the sourcing was also appropriate. Localemediamonitor (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the article. I think we have very thin sourcing, bordering on wholly unacceptable, but that despite medium.com's and facebook's bad reputations for reliability, the testimonies of Salter and Kyssa can be taken as accepted because of the Board of Directors' statement acknowledging them; and further, that Matthew Remski, a notable yoga practitioner and author, can similarly be cited. I've therefore used those sources, and have rearranged the material into chronological order. This does not mean that we can use medium.com willy-nilly: it remains "generally unreliable" and will certainly be challenged by the people who police such things; we will have to be extremely vigilant with what is asserted, and to remain neutral. By the way, part of the problem was the use of bare URLs rather than proper citations, which would have identified postings by Remski. Anyway, I hope you'll be pleased with the text. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for your work Chiswick Chap, the section is better. I think it still misses some appropriate facts, like that the Centre's investigation has been rejected and criticized by many of its own high-level members, that a private investigation is underway, and that the number of women alleging abuse or rape is over 30. Maybe you could put some of that in; I think the Le Devoir and Bayerischer Rundfunk sources are both legit, they have been used on Wikipedia many times. And/or we can leave it for now, maybe the BBC coverage will shake out some more major news reports on the subject. Thanks again Localemediamonitor (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I assume you have already guessed what I think about your repeating the material you added at Vishnudevananda Saraswati to Sivananda Yoga. Obviously I'm not in favour of WP:SPAMming anything on multiple articles around the project; that would be so even if the material was about Sivananda Yoga rather than about its Hatha Yoga instructor; and it would be so even if the material had suddenly transformed itself from unacceptably low-quality sources, incorrectly formatted, into high-quality citations. I find what you have done so far very close to WP:DISRUPTIVE, and hope very much that you will now discuss the matter normally so that we can find appropriate texts (different for the two articles) and suitable sources. Actually I think the number of reliable sources available is very small, and the amount we can properly say is accordingly rather limited. I suggest that all we do is put a brief pointer in Sivananda Yoga to the Vishnudevananda article, where I will now work on the BBC material. Anything else is, frankly, WP:UNDUE. I hope not to need to issue any more warnings, formal or otherwise. This is a project with many Good Articles and I hope to see the quality of the rest going up instead of down. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As you'll see from the two articles, I've added the BBC source and tried to rationalise the coverage so we don't repeat ourselves. The podcast actually adds little that's encyclopedic, though it is a harrowing account of Salter's suffering in an oppressive and manipulative environment. You will see that the article text uses both "sexual abuse" and "rape" where these usages can be justified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)